December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed

A Shattered Lens Brief

Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is
beneficial to K12 education in the United States.

Public Forum Debate, December 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AFFIRMATIVE
AP TESTING
TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING
INCREASED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND SUCCESS
AGGREGATING ACHIEVEMENT
LOW COST ACCOUNTABILITY
DON’T BLAME STANDARDIZED TESTS FOR THE HARMS OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
NEGATIVE
LACK OF COGNITIVE BENEFITS
DEMOTIVATING TEACHERS AND GAMING THE SYSTEM
INADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
SCARY SCORING

AP TESTING
1. AP Testing is related to attainment in higher education
Cecilia Speroni [ National Center for Postsecondary Research] Determinants of Students’
Success The Role of Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Programs
Overall, there are significant positive relationships between both AP and DE participation and students’ likelihood of
enrolling in college after high school, first enrolling in a four-year institution, and obtaining a bachelor’s degree.
There are, however, apparent differences in outcomes between students with AP credits and those with DE credits when compared to those with no AP or DE
credits.
2. AP Testing has a causal effect on higher attainment
Krista D. Mattern [College Board] Are AP®  Students More Likely to Graduate from College on
Time?
The results from this study indicate that participation in the AP Program, through the completion of one or more AP
Exams, was related to an increased likelihood that a student would graduate in four years or fewer, with graduation
rates of 58% and 55% for AP Exam takers compared with 38% and 34% for non-AP students for the Samples 1 and 2,
respectively. This means that regardless of what score was earned on the AP Exam(s), students who took an AP Exam were more likely to graduate in four
years or fewer than students who took no AP Exams. Focusing on performance in an AP Exam(s), the results showed that those students who earned higher
scores were more likely to graduate in four years or fewer than those who earned lower scores, with four-year graduation rates of 37% and 34% for students
with an average AP score of 1 compared to graduation rates of 71% and 73% for students with an average score of 5 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively. In
other words, high-performing AP students are almost twice as likely to graduate within four years compared with low-performing AP students. The
model-based analyses also show that AP Exam participation and performance both uniquely contributed to
predicting four-year graduation, above and beyond such variables as students’ prior academic performance, gender,
underrepresented minority status, and first-generation college-going status, which we know from the literature are
associated with graduation rates. For Sample 1, we additionally controlled for institutional characteristics of control and
selectivity and still found that AP Exam participation and performance were related to graduation, providing further
evidence of the value of the AP Program.
3. AP Testing provides an economic benefit
Krista D. Mattern [College Board] Are AP®  Students More Likely to Graduate from College on
Time?
With the ever-rising cost of attending college, this research has important implications for college students, their families, educators, policymakers, and
researchers. Reducing the amount of time spent in college so that students graduate on time would reduce the total
cost of college. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the total college cost for an undergraduate student attending a public
institution (including tuition, room, and board) rose 42%, after adjusting for inflation, between 2000-01 and 2010-11. To meet the rising costs of college,
many students are seeking financial aid, including loans. In fact, total college debt has exceeded total credit card debt (Kantrowitz, 2010) and the Student
Loan Debt Clock (available on www.finaid.org/loans/studentloandebtclock.phtml) lists the current outstanding student loan debt as more than $1 trillion. With
these figures in mind, it becomes increasingly urgent to not linger in a college program without sufficient and steady progress. Contrary to the intended
model of higher education, the majority of students enrolled in a four-year college or university do not graduate in four years. Specifically, fewer than 4 out of
10 students graduate from a four-year college within four years, roughly half graduate within five years, and nearly 60% graduate within six years (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Given that the average annual cost of a college education at a four-year institution was $21,657 in 2010-11, extending the
time to graduate by even a semester is a huge financial burden (Snyder & Dillow, 2012). The expenditures segmented by institutional
control show that the annual cost for a four-year public institution in 2010 was $15,605, compared with $31,957 at
a private institution. In other words, if a student attending a private institution takes an additional two years to
graduate from college, it will cost nearly an additional $65,000 compared with the total cost had he or she
graduated on time (in four years). Furthermore, as the national statistics cited above highlight, graduating from college in six years is not unheard
of, and in fact, six years is a commonly employed timeframe for reporting graduation rates. The less debt that accrues during the college years means the less
debt that must be paid back upon graduation, which is increasingly important in a turbulent economy. That being said, educational programs that
are positively related to graduating on time or earlier, such as the AP Program, are important to research and

promote in order to assist those who would benefit the most from such programs; that is not to say that anyone should take AP
courses without being prepared for such rigorous work, but rather that the AP Program is an important tool that can be used to prepare students for college.
[College Board] The Value of AP Courses and Exams
If you earn a qualifying grade on an AP Exam, you can receive credit for the equivalent course at thousands of
colleges and universities. This could save you as much as $3,000 per course
4. AP Testing provides a benefit while in high school and college
Sean M. Preston [Liberty University] THE COMPLETION OF ADVANCED PLACEMENT
COURSES AS AN INDICATOR OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN FIRSTYEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS
The researcher secured the grade point averages (GPA’s) of the students in the two research groups. The mean GPA for the Advanced
Placement (AP) group was 3.5225, while the mean for the non-AP group was 3.015. A right tailed t-test based on independent
samples revealed a significant difference between the two groups [t(67)=8.08, p=.000]. The researcher also collected the data via the Freshman Success
Survey (FSS). The mean scores for the AP and non-AP groups were 221.32 and 208.28 respectively. A second right tailed
t-test based on independent samples resulted in a significant difference between the means of the groups [t(67)=1.95, p=.029]. The divergence in scores
between Groups A and B answers both of the research questions. These questions ask whether there will be a significant difference in academic success
between students who completed Advanced Placement courses and those who did not, as indicated by (1) the grade point average (GPA) at the end of the
first semester of college by the students in the two groups, and (2) the stated results of the FSS. According to the groups’ GPA’s and the FSS,
Advanced Placement high school graduates are more academically successful than their non-AP counterparts during
the first year of college. In order to further substantiate the findings, the researcher considered additional elements produced from the FSS. For
Group A, the standard deviation(s) for the sample was 20.5, which demonstrated how concentrated each of the respondents’ values was in comparison to the
mean of 221.3. The variance (s2 ) for the sample in Group A was 421.9. The minimum value for the sample was 155, and the maximum value was 253. The
median value was 223. For Group B, the standard deviation(s) for the sample was 31.5, and the variance (s2 ) was 994.8. The minimum value in Group B was
63, while the maximum value was 237. The median value was 216 and the degrees of freedom were 67. Moreover, the self-reported SAT scores in the
AP group (1128) were significantly higher than those of the non-AP group (1055). Finally, the coded responses of the empirical
open-ended questionnaire further distinguished the role of Advanced Placement courses in the success of first-year college students. In addition to the survey
perspective, the researcher conducted an empirical study to further discern how Advanced Placement courses better prepare first-year college students for
the academic rigors of a secondary learning environment. The empirical questionnaire identified seven elements of success that the
subjects associated with completing AP classes while enrolled in high school. These elements included: (1) time
management, (2) self-confidence, (3) organization, (4) writing skills, (5) test preparation, (6) critical thinking, and (7)
critical reading skills (See Appendix E). The element of time management was the most reoccurring of the listed traits and was ranked as the most
critical by 11 of the 25 participants.
5. AP leads to higher attainment compared to similar non‐AP students
Daniel Murphy [College Board] A Comparison of College Performance of Matched AP and
NonAP Student Groups
Three straightforward findings were observed across the 10 AP Exams with respect to comparisons of the AP and Non-AP groups. Table 17 summarizes how
the three primary findings were observed across the six (or seven) dependent variables. The first finding shows that AP students as a group
consistently outperformed Non-AP students. Across the 10 subject areas, students who had taken an AP Exam
consistently took more hours in their first year, in the related subject area, and in college overall than did NonAP
students. They also consistently had higher GPAs in the subject area related to the AP Exam. For five of the 10 AP Exam
subject areas, the AP students also had significantly higher first-year GPAs. The AP effects were greatest with respect to the cumulative related-subject credit
hours taken by the students, where effect sizes were moderate for three of the 10 subjects. The second finding shows that the students in the Credit category
(i.e., the AP+ and Non-AP+ students) consistently significantly outperformed the students in the No Credit category (i.e., the AP- and Non-AP- students). The
students in the Credit group outperformed the students in the No Credit group across every dependent variable, including the three analyses that used
sequent course grades as a measure. Effect sizes were in the moderate range across multiple subjects for cumulative college credit hours taken and first-year
GPA. The Credit effects were greatest with respect to the cumulative AP-subject area GPAs of the students, where effect sizes were moderate for five of the
10 subjects. The third finding shows that the AP+ students consistently outperformed their Non-AP+ counterparts. AP+
students took significantly more first-year, subjectarea and overall hours in college than did Non-AP+ students. They
had significantly higher first-year and related-subject GPAs as well. Additionally, their cumulative GPAs were higher
in three out of the 10 subject areas. The related effect sizes were greatest with respect to related-subject credit
hours taken, where effect sizes were in the moderate range for four of the 10 subjects and large for another.

TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING
1. Standardized testing is used to track students
Jay P. Heubert [Committee on Appropriate Test Use] High Stakes:  Testing for Tracking,
Promotion, and Graduation
Tests play a complex role in tracking decisions. On one hand, there is evidence that most within-grade and within-class tracking decisions are not based solely
on test scores (Delany, 1991; Selvin et al., 1990; White et al., 1996). Although practice varies considerably, even from school to school, educators consistently
report that such decisions are based on multiple sources of information: test scores, teacher and counselor recommendations, grades, and (at secondary
levels) student choice (Oakes et al., 1992). Also, as previously noted, parents often play a powerful role.On the other hand, standardized tests are
routinely used in making tracking decisions (Glaser and Silver, 1994; Meisels, 1989). Moreover, they may play an
important, even dominant, role in selecting children for exam schools and gifted and talented programs.5 IQ tests play
an important part in the special education evaluation process, and their use contributes to the disproportionate placement of minority students into classes
for students with mild mental retardation (National Research Council, 1982; Haney, 1993).6
Even when test scores are just one factor among several that
influence tracking decisions, they may carry undue weight by appearing to provide a scientific justification and legitimacy for tracking decisions that such
decisions would not otherwise have.7
Some standardized test scores can be used appropriately in making tracking decisions, and
the following sections of this chapter describe criteria that are relevant in determining whether a particular test use is appropriate.
2. Tracking is beneficial to student education
Esther Duflo [MIT] Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence
from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya
Despite the critical importance of this issue for the educational policy both in developed and developing countries, there is surprisingly little rigorous evidence
addressing it, and to our knowledge this paper provides the first experimental evaluation of the impact of tracking in any context, and the only rigorous
evidence in a developing country context. After 18 months, the point estimates suggest that the average score of a student in
a tracking school is 0.14 standard deviations higher than that of a student in a non-tracking school. These effects
are persistent. One year after the program ended, students in tracking schools performed 0.16 standard deviations
higher than those in non-tracking schools. Moreover, tracking raised scores for students throughout the initial distribution of student
achievement. A regression discontinuity design approach reveals that students who were very close to the 50th percentile of the initial distribution within
their school scored similarly on the endline exam whether they were assigned to the top or bottom section. In each case, they did much better than their
counterparts in non-tracked schools. We also find that students in non-tracking schools scored higher if they were randomly assigned to peers with higher
initial scores. This effect was very strong for students at the top of the distribution, absent for students in the middle of the distribution and positive but not
as strong at the bottom of the distribution. Together, these results suggest that peers affect students both directly and indirectly by influencing teacher
behavior, in particular teacher effort and choice of target teaching level. Under the model, the impact of tracking will depend on teachers’ incentives, but in a
context in which teachers have convex payoffs in student test scores, tracking can lead them to refocus attention closer to the median student.

Laura Argys [University of Colorado] Detracking America's schools: the reform without cost?
Finally, we used the estimates of our achievement models to calculate the predicted test score for each individual in our sample had he or she been placed in
each of the four tracks, and we found that tracking was an important determinant of student achievement. For example, if our
entire sample had been placed in heterogeneous classes, the average test score was predicted to be 63.36 on a 100-point scale. The average 10th-grade
mathematics score associated with the placement of all students in average classes was predicted to be 65.30; in below-average classes, and in above-average
classes, By comparing the predictions for the various tracks with those for heterogeneous grouping, we were able to assess the impact of tracking. Placement
in a below-average math class, as compared to a heterogeneous one, was associated with a decrease crease in achievement of approximately five percentage
points. Placement in an above-average math class was associated with an achievement increase of roughly the same magnitude. And placement in an average
class was associated with an increase of somewhat less than two percentage points.(24) These results suggest that detracking would create
winners and losers. Although students in lower tracks would realize achievement gains by being placed in a
heterogeneous class, this gain would be at the expense of students placed in higher - level tracks. Our estimates
imply that detracking all students currently enrolled in homogenous classes would produce a net 1.7% drop in the
average mathematics test score.(25)

3. Ability Grouping benefits all students
Courtney Collins [NBER] DOES SORTING STUDENTS IMPROVE SCORES? AN ANALYSIS OF
CLASS COMPOSITION
The purpose of this study is to examine how schools sort students into classes, how those sorting mechanisms affect student achievement, and whether there
are heterogeneous sorting effects across a distribution of students. Using detailed student-level data that allows a student to be linked to his classroom, we
find evidence of a wide variation in sorting practices across schools. Many schools appear to sort along various dimensions, including previous math and
reading scores, gifted and talented or special education status, and limited English proficiency. We find strong evidence that sorting students
into more homogeneous groups is beneficial, particularly for sorting by previous testing score. Interestingly, when
allowing for heterogeneity in the sorting effect across a distribution of students, we find positive and significant
results for both high scoring and low scoring students, suggesting that both groups benefit from sorted classes. This is
consistent with the hypothesis that dividing students into more homogeneous groups allows teachers to direct their focus to a more narrow range of students
and meet the needs of their particular classroom more efficiently. This study has valuable policy implications because unlike many school policy variables, the
composition of classes can often be changed with little need for increased funds. A school with a fixed number of classrooms and teachers can increase
efficiency by rearranging students in the most effective way possible. This study suggests that creating classes with lower levels of dispersion of score or
ability level may improve the achievement outcomes for students across the score distribution.

INCREASED STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT AND SUCCESS
1. The majority of evidence finds testing benefits students
Richard Phelps [NonPartisan Education] The Effect of Testing on Achievement:
MetaAnalyses and Research Summary, 1910–2010 Source List, Effect Sizes, and References
for Quantitative Studies
The text of this study will be published in the International Journal of Testing. The study summarizes the research literature on the effect of
testing on student achievement, which comprises several hundred studies conducted from the early 20 century to
the present day. th Only quantitative studies are listed here (N studies = 177; N effects = 640). Mean effect sizes range from a moderate d .
0.55 to a fairly large d . 0.88 depending on the way effects are aggregated or effect sizes are adjusted for study artifacts. Testing with
feedback produces the strongest positive effect on achievement. Adding stakes or testing with greater
frequency also strongly and positively affects achievement. The evidence from a century’s worth of
quantitative studies shows the effect of testing on achievement to be moderately to strongly positive.
Smaller-scale studies, however, tend to produce stronger effects than do large-scale studies. Those who judge the effect of testing on
achievement exclusively from large-sample multivariate studies deprive themselves of the most focused, clear, and precise evidence. Some
prominent researchers in economics and education, for example, have claimed that no studies of “test-based accountability” had been conducted
before theirs in the early 2000s. But, this list includes 24 studies completed before 2000 whose primary focus was to measure the effect of
“test-based accountability.” A few dozen more pre-2000 studies also measured the effect of test-based accountability although such was not their
primary focus. Include qualitative and program evaluation studies of test-based accountability, and the count of pre-2000 studies rises into the
hundreds.
2. Testing causes students to gain more knowledge and skills
John Bishop [Cornell University] Impacts of Tougher Graduation Requirements on Course
Selection and Learning in High School and Post High School Experiences of Vocational
Students
Higher academic course graduation requirements increased academic course taking but did not decrease vocational course
taking. Indeed, students in states with above average numbers of academic courses required for graduation took
significantly more vocational education courses and were more likely to become vocational concentrators than students in states with low
minimums. Another surprising finding was the positive effect of academic course graduation requirements and MCEs
on the number of art, music, health and other personal interest courses taken. We doubt this is what policy makers had in mind
when they established these policies. Why do minimum competency exams appear to increase personal interest course taking more than they increase
academic course taking? What is it about higher academic course graduation requirements that results in students taking more personal interest courses?
More research is needed on the impacts of individual components of state course graduation requirements on course taking, test score gains and other
outcomes. The paper then examined the determinants of test score gains between 8th and 12th grade in core academic subjects. Not surprisingly, gains were
larger for students who took many academic courses and smaller for those who took introductory vocational courses. Occupational courses and personal
interest courses had no effect on test score gains. Course graduation requirements and local option minimum competency exams had no effect (either direct
or indirect) on learning during high school. State minimum competency examinations modestly increased learning by non-vocational students but not by
vocational concentrators. The next outcome examined was college attendance. Not surprisingly, the number of academic courses completed
had a strong relationship with college attendance. Occupational vocational courses and personal interest courses also had significant
positive relationships with college attendance but the magnitude of these effects was smaller than for academic courses. State and local minimum
competency examinations had large significant positive effects on the college attendance rates of vocational
concentrators but no effects on other students.

3. Testing develops long term education and achievement benefits
Adam Putnam [Washington University] Ten Benefits of Testing and Their Applications to
Educational Practice
We have reviewed 10 reasons why increased testing in educational settings is beneficial to learning and memory, as a self-study strategy for students or as a
classroom tactic. The benefits can be indirect—students study more and attend more fully if they expect a test – but we have emphasized the direct effects of
testing. Retrieval practice from testing provides a potent boost to future retention. Retrieval practice provides a relatively straightforward method of
enhancing learning and retention in educational settings. We end with our 10 benefits of testing in summary form: Benefit 1: The testing effect:
Retrieval aids later retention. Benefit 2: Testing identifies gaps in knowledge. Benefit 3: Testing causes students to
learn more from the next learning episode. Benefit 4: Testing produces better organization of knowledge. Benefit 5:
Testing improves transfer of knowledge to new contexts. Benefit 6: Testing can facilitate retrieval of information
that was not tested. Benefit 7: Testing improves metacognitive monitoring. Benefit 8: Testing prevents interference
from prior material when learning new material. Benefit 9: Testing provides feedback to instructors. Benefit 10:
Frequent testing encourages students to study. Finally, testing can of course be relied on to fulfill its traditional
functions: Permitting instructors to assign grades to students.
4. Higher achievement standards increase wages
John Bishop [Cornell University] Impacts of Tougher Graduation Requirements on Course
Selection and Learning in High School and Post High School Experiences of Vocational
Students
Of the four types of graduation requirements evaluated, only two had positive effects on labor market outcomes immediately after high school. Increased
state total course graduation requirements and local minimum competency examinations were not associated with better labor market outcomes. State
minimum competency examinations, by contrast, were associated with dramatically improved labor market outcomes.
Graduates from MCE states who did not do a vocational concentration earned 6 to 7 percent more per month and 9
percent more per annum than similar graduates in non‐MCE states. Vocational concentrators benefited even more
from growing up in a MCE state. In the 21 months after graduating they were onethird less likely to be
unemployed, 8 percent more likely to be employed, paid 8 percent more per hour and earned 15 percent more per
month. Employed graduates with vocational concentrations were also significantly more likely to get formal training
when they lived in states with MCEs. Academic course graduation requirements also had a few positive effects.
Holding total Carnegie unit graduation requirements constant, a one unit increase in academic requirements raised
wage rates by 1.7 percent and 1994 monthly earnings by 3 percent.
5. Testing creates benefits student achievement without limiting their
knowledge
[Center for Public Education] Highstakes testing and effects on instruction: Research review
The response to questions posed for this research review is that a majority of the public, including teachers, supports high-stakes testing, although they worry
about its effect on teaching and learning; counselors in North Carolina find testing affects their ability to do their jobs; and students in Arkansas are not upset
by testing. By looking at empirical evidence, we also find that high-stakes testing increases the amount of learning, as
evidenced by performance on other tests. Additionally, we see that teachers can both prepare students for tests
and teach them what they need to know, if curriculum is aligned with standards and tests and if data from the tests
is used to refine curriculum. As is often the case with research on educational topics, research on responses to high-stakes testing needs to be
approached with judgment and caution, and above all with an open mind. Research does not give us the definitive answers we seek; rather it provides us the
tools to arrive at our own conclusions. More rigorous studies will continue to emerge that shed valuable light in various ways—both good and bad—that
high-stakes tests can affect instruction. The Center will continue to explore this issue and provide updates as new research becomes available.

AGGREGATING ACHIEVEMENT
1. Standard testing is needed to provide accurate grades for students
Richard Phelps [NonPartisan Education] Characteristics of an Effective Student Testing
System
A third likely consequence of eliminating high-stakes standardized testing is a blackout of reliable information on student performance anywhere outside a
student’s own school district. Eliminating high-stakes standardized testing would increase schools’ reliance on teacher
grading and testing, which are far more likely to prove idiosyncratic and nongeneralizable than any standardized
test. Individual teachers can narrow the curriculum to what they personally prefer. Grades are susceptible to
inflation as students learn teachers’ idiosyncrasies and how to manipulate their opinions. According to research on
the topic, many teachers, when assigning marks, tend to consider noncognitive outcomes, including student class
participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment. Actual subject-matter mastery is
just one among many factors. Moreover, given most teachers’ relatively brief training in testing and measurement, it is not clear that their testing and grading
practices would be superior even if they focused only on subject-matter mastery. If the curriculum is not tested, it is difficult to know if
any of it works. Without standardized tests, reliably gauging student progress becomes problematic for anyone
outside the classroom. One must accept whatever each teacher says, and without standardized tests, points of
comparison for different classrooms become progressively rarer. Without either common standards or high-stakes
standardized tests, there may be no effective way to monitor systemwide performance at all. Some U.S. teachers may be
doing a wonderful job in their totally customized classes, but some may be doing an awful job. How is one to know or tell which? One must hope that
teachers will face down their own natural inclinations as well as those of students, parents, and schools to avoid accountability and hold themselves and their
students to high standards of performance regardless. One must also hope that teachers will know how.
2. Standardized tests are essential to analyzing student achievement
Herbert Walberg [The Heartland Institute] Stop the War Against Standardized Tests
Student performance is a crucial element of a metaphorical three-legged stool that also includes standards and
learning. When one leg is weak or missing, educational programs may be faulty, but if all three are strong, the programs can be strong. Standardized
tests are used to measure the student performance leg of this stool. If standardized tests are misused, of course,
the program and student learning may be defective. When standardized tests are used appropriately, a great deal
can be learned about how well schools function. That information allows educators and policymakers to make better-informed conclusions
about how much students are learning, which in turn allows them to make better-informed decisions about improving programs. Students benefit
directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for
learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the
skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress. Computers streamline
this process by providing immediate feedback about correct and incorrect responses far more quickly and with
much greater patience than teachers and tutors can provide.
3. Standardized testing allows achievement to be compared
[Columbia University] Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing
Standardized testing allows students located in various schools, districts, and even states to be compared. Without
standardized testing this comparison would not be possible. Public school students in the state of Texas are all required to take the
same state standardized tests. This means that a student in Amarillo can be compared to a student in Dallas. Being able to accurately compare
data is invaluable and is a major reason that the Common Core State Standards have been adopted. These will allow for a more accurate comparison
between states.

4. Comparing achievement is essential to education policy making
Richard Phelps [NonPartisan Education] Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Educational
Testing Programs
Distilled to the most rudimentary elements, the main benefits of standardized testing are four - information, motivation,
organizational clarity, and goodwill. But, that amounts to quite a thorough distillation. The information benefits alone can manifest themselves in
several different forms, to several different audiences. Test results can tell us about the performance of an individual student.
They can provide information about a teacher, a curriculum, a textbook, a school, a program, a district, or a state
policy. Moreover, the information provided by test results can inform one or more among many parties - parents,
voters, employers, higher education institutions, other schools, state departments of education, and so on. Perhaps
the simplest, and least disputed, benefit of standardized tests is in diagnosis. Test results can pinpoint a student's
academic strengths and weaknesses, areas that need work, and areas where help is needed. Test scores provide a
measurement tool that can be used to judge the effectiveness of preexisting or proposed school programs. Test
results can inform teachers, schools, and school systems about their curricular and instructional strengths and
weaknesses. That may lead to a better alignment of curriculum with instruction, a benefit often enumerated by
teachers and administrators in evaluations of testing programs. Teachers have also reported that they learn more
about their students, their own teaching, and other teachers' methods from high-stakes external tests. Information
can also be used for accountability purposes. Higher-level school system administrators can use information to
make judgments about performance at the school or school district level and to increase efficiency. In an
environment of school choice (e.g., school districts with open enrollment), information about school performance
can help parent-student school shoppers to make a better-informed selection. Finally, information benefits can
consist of signaling, screening, and credentialing effects. College admissions counselors and employers can make a
more informed decision about applicants' academic achievement with test scores than they can without. Colleges, for
example, use measures of predictive validity(correlation coefficient of entrance test score with college achievement) to justify requiring applicants to submit
scores from college admissions tests (ACT or SAT). Measures of allocative efficiency (efficient sorting of applicants to organizations) are more difficult to
measure, but are relevant benefits as well.

5. Standardized testing allows for international comparison
Martin Carnoy [Economic Policy Institute] WHAT DO INTERNATIONAL TESTS REALLY SHOW
ABOUT U.S. STUDENT PERFORMANCE?
Education policymakers and analysts express great concern about the performance of U.S. students on international
tests. Education reformers frequently invoke the relatively poor performance of U.S. students to justify school
policy changes. In December 2012, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) released national average results
from the 2011 administration of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan promptly issued
a press release calling the results “unacceptable,” saying that they “underscore the urgency of accelerating achievement in secondary school and the need to
close large and persistent achievement gaps,” and calling particular attention to the fact that the 8th-grade scores in mathematics for U.S. students failed to
improve since the previous administration of the TIMSS. Two years earlier, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released
results from another international test, the 2009 administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Secretary Duncan’s statement
was similar. The results, he said, “show that American students are poorly prepared to compete in today’s knowledge economy. … Americans need to wake
up to this educational reality—instead of napping at the wheel while emerging competitors prepare their students for economic leadership.” In particular,
Duncan stressed results for disadvantaged U.S. students: “As disturbing as these national trends are for America, enormous achievement gaps among black
and Hispanic students portend even more trouble for the U.S. in the years ahead.”

6. International comparison raises education standards
[Council on Foreign Relations] Education Reform and U.S. Competitiveness

To compete in the twenty‐first century, individuals and countries will have to add value in the workplace to
command a high standard of living and be competitive in the global marketplace. Education is the key to adding
value. The United States recognizes that its K-12 education is not doing the job. You need good teachers with content expertise,
high expectations, and feedback systems to help struggling students and teachers. These three requirements are difficult to implement in a massive public
education system designed more for working adults than for learning students. We need to follow the lead of other countries and recruit teachers from the
top of universities' graduating classes. We might start by converting all schools of education to programs like UTeach in Texas, a program designed to turn
content experts into teachers, letting potential teachers study subject matter they will be teaching rather than the mind numbing theory of how to teach.
The United States needs to open its eyes in regard to expectation levels in our K‐12 system. Achieve, a non-profit
education reform organization, has been working on a state-driven, internationally benchmarked common core
curriculum to replace today's myriad state tests. This will be an effort to get all kids in the United States to focus on
learning the same material by grade level, by subject matter, in alignment with other successful education systems
in the world. Driving these changes at the local level can provide the political will to implement change and get states to lead the way. Catalyzing
change in education is especially difficult because of entrenched bureaucracies and the K-12 state monopoly. There is opportunity to use competition to
effect change via charter schools. In states like Arizona, Colorado, and Indiana, charter schools are given great leeway in how they operate. Schools
should embrace more tension in the system through paying for performance, employing data systems that track
how much a child learns from a teacher, measuring teacher quality, giving local administrators the ability to manage
staff and finances, and comparing results to the best education systems in the world.
7. Standards must improve in education for US economic success
Donna Cooper [Center for American Progress] The Competition that Really Matters
Competition from rapidly growing countries such as China and India are changing business norms and the links between national economies. We are quite
familiar with what economists call “global labor arbitrage,” the substitution of high-wage workers in advanced economy countries with low-wage workers in
developing economies. That’s led to a global re-ordering of production, jobs, and growth. More recently, technological advances in telecommunications and
transportation, as well as skills development in the developing world, are dragging more U.S. industries—including computer programming, high-tech
manufacturing, and service sectors—into international competition. This development is feeding a mounting demand for high-skilled
labor around the world. To position the United States for the future, substantial investments are needed in
research, infrastructure, and education. The most important of these areas to address is education. Why? Because as this
report shows, the overwhelming economic evidence points to education—and human capital investments,
generally—as the key drivers of economic competitiveness in the long term. Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, for
example, has shown that in advanced countries such as the United States, human capital investment had three times the positive
effect on economic growth as did physical investment. And educational investment is particularly important in early childhood
development and learning, according to growth economists. The return on investment from interventions such as prenatal care and early childhood programs
is higher than for virtually any class of financial assets over time, according to Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman. The academic literature also
shows that failing to provide broad opportunities for nurturing, learning, and productive development harms economic growth and national competitiveness.
Having established the primacy in human capital investments as the key to U.S. long-term economic
competitiveness, it’s important for policymakers and the public to understand how American children are faring
today, and where they need to catch up.

LOW COST ACCOUNTABILITY
1. Standardized testing is economically efficient
Caroline Hoxby [NBER] THE COST OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Nearly every achievement and ability test administered to American elementary and secondary school students is purchased from a commercial test making
firm, which also grades the test and prepares reports at the state, district, school, grade, class, and student levels. The same firms support with their tests
with curriculum guides, suggested standards for criterion-based tests, and materials designed to help schools understand the tests and standards and use
them wisely. Indeed, test-makers tend also to be textbook publishers, so the knowledge on which they base tests and standards is generally the same
knowledge that they must be able to defend for inclusion in textbooks.1 The American elementary and secondary testing and standards industry is dominated
by a several firms that well known: HarcourtBrace Educational Measurement, Reed-Elsevier, Houghton-Mifflin, Prentice-Hall, CTB/McGraw-Hill, and so on. In
practice, these firms rely on similar psychometric research and routinely hire experts from 3 one another. The firms publish tests with names that are
nationally familiar (such as the Stanford 9, California Test of Basic Skills/Terra Nova, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills), but they also write the states’ specialized
tests, such as the Connecticut Mastery Tests, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, Florida Writes, and all of the others. Because of the small number and
consistency of the firms involved, analysts have a very clear sense of the industry’s revenues from accountability systems. According to the Association of
American Publishers, the total revenues associated with accountability systems (revenues from sales of tests, revenues from standards-related materials like
curriculum guides and criteria, and revenues services associated with accountability such as consulting for state government) amounted to $234.1 million in
2000. Because this figure includes a variety of intelligence quotient tests, diagnostic tests for disabled children, career guidance tests, and the like; this figure
overstates firms’ revenue associated with accountability. Nevertheless, the revenues amount to only $4.96 per American student!
Table 1 shows that, even when we add in the cost of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only
important elementary or secondary test not associated with a commercial test-maker, the cost of accountability is
$5.81 per student. Such costs represents a very small share of the cost of educating American children: average
per-pupil spending in the United States was $8,157 in the 2000-01 school year. Put another way, payments to all
test-makers (including the United States government) represented just 0.07 percent (seven‐hundredths of 1
percent) of the cost of elementary and secondary education. Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would
still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education. In short, it seems likely that
people who oppose accountability because of its costs have not investigated the revenues of test-makers, which
suggest that the costs are extremely modest.
2. Teachers acknowledge the importance of standardized testing
[Gates Foundation] Primary Sources: Americas Teachers on Americas Schools
Teachers see value in standardized tests — there are only 16% and 11% who say stateand district-required tests,
respectively, are “not at all important” in measuring student academic achievement. They also see a role for
common assessments across states. As previously noted, 52% think common assessments across states would make
a strong or very strong impact on improving academic achievement.
3. Standardized tests do not inhibit teaching or learning
[Public Agenda] Where's the Backlash? Students Say They Don't Fret Standardized Tests
In its surveys of 600 middle and high school students nationally, Public Agenda found large majorities were taking higher standards and increased testing in
stride. Nearly three quarters of the students (73 percent) said they can handle the pressure of taking standardized
tests, while 23 percent don't get nervous at all. Only five percent said they feel so nervous they can't take the test. Virtually all
students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously. Eight
of 10 students say their teachers use class time to prepare students for the tests, but nearly the same number (78
percent) say the effort does not come at the expense of neglecting other classwork. Eight in 10 students (82 percent) say
academic expectations in their schools are about right, and 71 percent say the amount of homework they are assigned, as well as the number of tests they
have to take, are about right.

DON’T BLAME STANDARDIZED
TESTS FOR THE HARMS OF NO
CHILD LEFT BEHIND
1. Analytic
Neg will provide harms of standardized testing derived from “No Child
Left Behind”, Aff should respond to these harms by exploiting the fact
that NCLB is a flawed set of educational reforms, and that standardized
testing exists in the absence of NCLB. To support this response, Aff
should use arguments such as AP testing and John Bishop’s findings to
depict the benefit of standardized testing without the influence of NCLB.
The general response to Neg’s harms will rely on arguing that NCLB
misuses the data provided by standardized tests, and therefore the
harms of Neg are a result of this misuse rather than a result of the
standardized tests themselves.

LACK OF COGNITIVE BENEFITS
1. Neuroscience finds that even the highest performers on standardized
tests don’t see direct benefits to their reasoning/abstract processing
abilities
Anne Trafton [MIT] Even when test scores go up, some cognitive abilities don’t

To evaluate school quality, states require students to take standardized tests; in many cases, passing those tests is necessary to receive a high-school diploma.
These high-stakes tests have also been shown to predict students’ future educational attainment and adult employment and income.
Such [standardized] tests are designed to measure the knowledge and skills that students have acquired in school
— what psychologists call “crystallized intelligence.” However, schools whose students have the highest gains on
test scores do not produce similar gains in “fluid intelligence” — the ability to analyze abstract problems and think
logically — according to a new study from MIT neuroscientists working with education researchers at Harvard
University and Brown University. In a study of nearly 1,400 eighth-graders in the Boston public school system, the researchers found
that some schools have successfully raised their students’ scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS). However, those schools had almost no effect on students’ performance on tests of fluid
intelligence skills, such as working memory capacity, speed of information processing, and ability to solve abstract
problems. “Our original question was this: If you have a school that’s effectively helping kids from lower socioeconomic environments by moving up their
scores and improving their chances to go to college, then are those changes accompanied by gains in additional cognitive skills?” says John Gabrieli, the
Grover M. Hermann Professor of Health Sciences and Technology, professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and senior author of a forthcoming Psychological
Science paper describing the findings. Instead, the researchers found that educational practices designed to raise knowledge and boost test scores do not
improve fluid intelligence. “It doesn’t seem like you get these skills for free in the way that you might hope, just by doing a lot of studying and being a good
student,” says Gabrieli, who is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Scott Barry Kaufman [Scientific American] Standardized Achievement Tests: What Are They Good
For? Hint: Not Cognitive Ability.

If cognitive ability is more your thing, you might be a bit disappointed to see that schools[standardized tests] aren't doing a good job
boosting particular cognitive skills. That might be troublesome, considering the importance of fluid reasoning and
executive functioning (such as working memory and cognitive inhibition) for a wide range of important life
outcomes, including school performance, drug use, crime, and achieving virtually any goal you have in life. As the
researchers point out, there are examples of targeted programs that increase cognitive control and reasoning. It just looks like teaching to the standardized
tests isn't going to cut it.

Anna Brix Thomsen [Aarhus Universitet] The Paranoia of Standardized Testing

‘Teaching to the Test’ has become a buzz phrase synonym for everything that is wrong with the current education system and no one (besides students) know
this better than teachers themselves. Teachers in many schools now spend more time preparing students for the many various tests that are mandated by
legislators than actual teaching with the consequence of teachers leaving their jobs – often being those teachers who loved teaching and for whom teaching
was a passion and a calling. There has for instance been several examples of honored and respected teachers resigning from their jobs due to the current
state of the education system, for example veteran Ellie Rubenstein whose story was shared here on the blog on DAY 23 and award winning teacher Ron
Maggiano who quit his job as a teacher just four years prior to full retirement. In accordance with this, a five-year University of Maryland study
completed in 2007 found “the pressure teachers were feeling to ‘teach to the test'” since NCLB was leading to
“declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual
amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum.” [i]
A possible consequence of this tendency is that the teachers who love teaching will leave their jobs and find something else to do and their jobs will be taken
over by people who has no interest in or passion about education but who see the teaching profession as an easy way to make a living. As an extension of
this problem, students will come to school and attend classes without teachers motivated to educate and memorization and rote learning will take the place
of any form of creative and participatory learning processes. Teachers no longer have to engage students or challenge their preconceived ideas because all
answers will already be preconceived from the moment they enter into the education system and all teachers have to do is to pour standardized knowledge
and information into the heads of students. Concordantly a 2010 College of William & Mary study found Americans’ scores on the
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking have been dropping since 1990, and researcher Kyung-Hee Kim lays part of the

blame on the increase in standardized testing: “If we neglect creative students in school because of the structure
and the testing movement… then they become underachievers. [ii]

James R. Delisle [Kent State University] Dumbing Down America: The War on Our Nation's Brightest
Young Minds (And What We Can Do to Fight Back)

“What was educationally significant and hard to measure has been replaced by what is educationally insignificant
and easy to measure. So now we measure how well we taught what isn’t worth learning.” - Arthur Costa
2. This is particularly harmful for student learning and post‐educational
abilities considering how much time is spent on teaching for and taking
standardized tests
JENNIFER C. KERR AND JOSH LEDERMAN [The Huffington Post] This Is How Much Time Students
Actually Spend Taking Standardized Tests

Students, parents and teachers have long lamented the hours that kids spend taking standardized tests, especially since the introduction of the Common Core
academic standards. But just how much time each year is it?

A. Between 10-15 hours.

B. Between 20-25 hours.

C. Between 30-35 hours.

The correct answer is "B," according to a comprehensive study of 66 of the nation's big-city school districts by the Council of the Great City Schools. It said
testing amounts to about 2.3 percent of classroom time for the average eighth-grader in public school. Between
pre-K and 12th grade, students took about 112 mandatory standardized exams.

The study analyzed the time spent actually taking the tests, but it did not include the hours devoted to preparation
ahead of the testing required by the federal government, states or local districts. It also did not include regular day-to-day classroom quizzes and tests
in reading, math, science, foreign languages and more.

[National Education Association] Excessive HighStakes Testing Has Negative Effects on Students,
Teachers

Teachers nationwide who taught classes in which students took a state standardized test in 2012-13 spent an average
of the equivalent of 54 school days, or 29% of their total work time for the school year, on tasks related to that
testing. Of those 54 school days, an equivalent of about 39 days was spent on preparing students to take the test,
and fewer than two days were spent reviewing results with students or parents.

DE‐MOTIVATING TEACHERS AND
GAMING THE SYSTEM
1. Teachers feel that standardized tests are harmful to their classrooms;
nearly half consider leaving profession because of them
Tim Walker [National Education Association] NEA Survey: Nearly Half Of Teachers Consider Leaving
Profession Due to Standardized Testing

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently conceded that too much standardized testing was “sucking the
oxygen out of the room” and causing “undue stress.” Although some of the nation’s educators may have been encouraged by Duncan’s
words, most policymakers have spent the past decade ignoring calls from teachers to curb high-stakes testing.

But what is it about standardized testing specifically that makes it toxic to so many educators? To help answer this question, researchers at the National
Education Association collected and analyzed phone survey data from 1500 PreK-12 teachers. Four specific factors emerged that, taken together, reveal a
teaching force frustrated with the impact high stakes testing has had on students and on morale.

Too Much Pressure
According to the NEA survey, a majority of teachers reported feeling considerable pressure to improve test scores.
72 percent replied that they felt “moderate” or “extreme” pressure from both school and district administrators.

From fellow teachers and parents, however, a large majority of respondents said they felt very little or no pressure. The fact that increasing numbers of
parents nationwide no longer want their children to be exposed to a one-size-fits-all education approach may help explain the disparity between them and
school and district officials.

Negative Impact on the Classroom
Forty-two percent of the surveyed teachers reported that the emphasis on improving standardized test scores had a
“negative impact” on their classroom, while only 15 percent said the impact was “positive.” Over the past decade,
the high stakes testing regime has squeezed out much of the curriculum that can make schools an engaging and
enriching experience for students, and teachers have been forced to dilute their creativity to teach to the test.

“I would much rather help students learn how to conduct research and how to discuss and how to explore controversies and how to complete multi-task
projects than teach them how to recall this or that fact for an exam,” explains teacher Connie Fawcett.

Time Wasted
The sheer volume of tests that teachers are tasked with administering and preparing students for is enormously time-consuming. Fifty-two percent of
teachers surveyed said they spend too much time on testing and test prep. The average teacher now reports
spending about 30 percent of their work time on testing-related tasks, including preparing students, proctoring, and
reviewing results of standardized tests. Teresa Smith Johnson, a 5th grade teacher in Georgia, says her school spends a minimum of 8 weeks
testing during the school year. “That doesn’t include preparing for testing, talking about testing, and examining data from testing,” she adds. “Imagine what
we could do with that time. There must be a better plan.”

‘Test and Punish’
Education “reformers” are obsessed with rooting out “bad” teachers, and they have persuaded lawmakers across the nation that the only quick ‘n’ easy way
to do that is to tie teacher evaluation to test scores. Over 40 percent of surveyed members reported that their school placed “moderate” to “extreme”
emphasis on students’ test scores to evaluate their performance. But using scores this way is losing support among the general public. According to the
recent PDK poll on the public’s attitude towards public education, only 38 percent of the public – and only 31 percent of parents – support using students’
standardized test scores to evaluate teachers.

“Educators know that real accountability in public schools requires all stakeholders to place student needs at the center of all efforts,” says NEA President Lily
Eskelsen García. “Real accountability in public schools requires that everyone—lawmakers, teachers, principals, parents and students—partner in accepting
responsibility for improving student learning.”

Testing and Teacher Morale
While it’s clear from the survey that over-testing has taken its toll on classrooms across the country, what’s the cumulative effect on teachers? Teachers love
their work, and the NEA survey found that 75 percent of teachers are satisfied with their jobs. However, the data also indicate that toxic testing

environments contribute to lower job satisfaction and thoughts of leaving the profession. Despite the high level of
overall satisfaction, nearly half (45 percent) of surveyed member teachers have considered quitting because of
standardized testing. Teachers are dedicated individuals and many succeed in focusing on the positive, but the fact that testing has prompted such a
high percentage of educators to contemplate such a move underscores its corrosive effect on the profession.
2. Teachers feel pressured to improve standardized test scores, which
comes with a host of harms
[National Education Association] Excessive HighStakes Testing Has Negative Effects on Students,
Teachers

Teachers reported feeling considerable pressure, particularly from administrators, to improve test scores.  Nearly
three-quarters (72%) of our teacher members surveyed reported feeling moderate or extreme pressure from school and
district administrators to improve test scores. Teachers who experienced increased pressure (from school and district
administrators in particular, but also from other teachers and parents) were more likely to express three perceptions about testing: 1)
Standardized testing has a negative impact on their classrooms 2) They spend too much time on standardized
testing 3) Their evaluations depend to a moderate or extreme degree on student test scores.  Although 41% of surveyed
teachers reported that the emphasis on improving standardized test scores had a negative impact on their classrooms, only 14% reported a positive impact.
More than half (51%) of our surveyed members reported having spent too much time on standardized testing. January 2015  Nearly half (42%) of surveyed
members reported that their school placed moderate or extreme emphasis on students' test scores to evaluate their performance. The combination of
these three negative perceptions contributes to two indicators of low morale: 1) Lower job satisfaction 2) A greater
likelihood that teachers consider leaving the profession due to testing.

A comparison of three states, each with a sample of 900 teachers, revealed large differences in both opinions about testing
and in teacher morale. Two of the states (Florida and Tennessee) had mandated the use of test scores for teacher
evaluations and the third state (California) did not. Teachers in the states with mandates reported: 1) More
negative feelings about testing 2) Much lower job satisfaction, and 3) Much higher percentage thought of leaving
the profession due to testing  In states with mandates, the percent of teachers who reported “a lot” or “extreme” pressure from school
administrators to improve test scores were 57% and 58%, while in the state without mandates it was 34%.  In the two states with mandates,
those reporting being satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs was 57% and 51% as compared to 79% in the state
without mandates.  In the states with mandates, 61% and 67% of teachers reported having thought of leaving the
profession due to testing as compared to 27% in the state without mandates.

i) This increased pressure (largely at the hands of No Child Left
Behind) has schools “gaming the system” to raise test scores.

Audrey AmreinBeardsley [International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership] THE
UNINTENDED, PERNICIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF "STAYING THE COURSE" ON THE UNITED
STATES' NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND POLICY

NCLB requires all states to implement accountability policies to ensure that 100 percent of elementary
students in grades 3–8 and high school students in public schools achieve academic proficiency by the year 2014.
Every public school student in the nation is to reach academic proficiency eight years from now. Will 100 percent of America’s public school
students reach this target? By gaming the system, it is likely. Teachers, administrators, and education leaders have
employed a multitude of questionable test preparation practices to help their states, schools, and students
meet high standards. Methods of gaming tests, however, result in spurious test score gains unrelated to
true gains in student learning. When investigating whether stronger accountability measures help students meet higher standards, we
must consider the extent to which the following factors are used to artificially inflate gains in student learning and academic achievement.

Teaching to the Test
Teaching to the test occurs when teachers disproportionately teach students things they know will be on
accountability tests. A teacher who has administered a few of these annual tests in the past may gain some understanding of what to expect
and teach students only those concepts the teacher predicts will be on future iterations of the test. A teacher may rehearse students

for a test with clone items that look exactly like the items on previous forms of the test but with the names
of the people in the word problems and the numbers in the mathematical equations changed. A teacher
may have students write and rewrite five-paragraph essays, neglecting other writing genres, knowing that a
five-paragraph essay is expected on the annual writing assessment. A teacher may make copies of the actual test or the
test used in previous years to rehearse students for the upcoming tests, over and over again. Teachers might have their students
spend hours memorizing facts, learning test-taking strategies, bubbling score sheets accurately, eliminating
unlikely distractor responses, making educated guesses, and using multiple-choice answers to solve
mathematical problems backwards, all of which help students game these tests to pass; all of which are
classic threats to test validity. Because teaching to the test may cause scores to increase, it is a popular practice in which teachers
engage to artificially raise test scores. Such practices are sometimes even encouraged by local school administrators
when school composite statistics are at risk. Score gains do not last, however, nor are they reflected in
other measures of student learning and achievement (See, for example, Amrein-Beardsley & Berliner,
2002b,c; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Linn, Graue, & Sanders, 1990; McNeil, 2000; Stake, 2001).

Narrowing of the Curriculum
Narrowing the curriculum is when teachers do not teach some important topics within subject areas or avoid teaching
parts of the state standards they are supposed to teach, knowing that what they omit from their lessons will not be
included on accountability tests. It may be written in the state standards, for example, that a 10th grade mathematics teacher must
teach graphing equalities and inequalities. A teacher aware of the fact that questions assessing students’ abilities to graph inequalities are usually
not included on the high school graduation exam might simply omit this lesson to concentrate more on graphing equalities instead. School
administrators also contribute to this at the local school level. Two months before high-stakes tests are
administered, a school principal may eliminate recess, art, music, or physical education or replace science
with mathematics and social studies with language arts to intensify math, reading, and writing instruction to
provide amplified opportunities for students to rehearse the basic subject areas tested (See, for example, Dorn,
1998; Koretz, 1996; Kreitzer, Madaus, & Haney, 1989; McNeil, 2000; Sacks, 1999; Swope & Miner, 2000.)

Exclusion and Exemption Practices
Students are also subjected to creative exclusion and exemption practices. Students with histories of poor academic
performance might be encouraged to stay home and miss accountability tests, or they might be suspended
or expelled before accountability tests are administered. Low-scoring high school students might be
counseled to quit or be suspended from school just before tests so that their scores will not be included in
composite test score calculations. Students may be falsely exempted from participating in accountability tests for being English
language learners (ELLs) even if they speak English fluently enough to participate. Additionally, students may be purposely labeled as severely
handicapped when, by law, their handicap should not prevent them from participating in state tests. (Federal and state provisions have been
enacted, however, to minimize these false exemptions of ELLs and special needs students.) Low-performing students may also be
retained in grade levels in excessive numbers before pivotal testing years so that they will have more
chances to be drilled on the tested material or so that they will not taint the pool of test takers by
negatively skewing test score distributions. School personnel would rather these students not take part in
accountability tests. In all probability, if these students participated, they would bring down the school’s
average scores, placing the district, school, administrators, and teachers at risk (See, for example, Bass, Dizon, & Feller,
2006; Haladyna, Nolen, & Haas; 1991; Haney, 2000; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Kelleher, 1999; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000; Madaus
& Clarke, 2001; Madaus, West, Harmon, Lomax, & Viator, 1992; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1993; McNeil, 2000; May, 2000).

Cheating
The pressures associated with stronger accountability testing are also driving teachers and school
administrators to cheat. In fact, as tests become more consequential and the penalties of failure more
severe, the likelihood school personnel will cheat on tests increases (Schrag, 2000; Viadero, 2000). In newspaper articles
across the country, journalists have described ways in which teachers and administrators have cheated on accountability tests; the articles written
because they have been caught. A teacher may allow students more time to complete a test than is prescribed; walk
around the classroom providing students with hints, clarifications, definitions, or answers; tell students to
rethink particular questions if the teacher sees incorrect answers; and some have been caught manually
correcting students’ answers on accountability test score sheets. Cheating is just one more way teachers and administrators
can artificially promote increases in test scores to dodge the negative or realize the positive consequences attached to accountability tests
(Haladyna, Nolen, & Haas, 1991; Haney, 2000; Kornhaber & Orfield, 2001; Sacks, 1999; Shepard, 1990; Smith, 1991; Urdan & Paris, 1994).

Administrative Manipulation
Administrators are not immune to the temptations of cheating and other score-boosting practices. Administrators have briefed
teachers on what will be tested on upcoming accountability tests; made copies of secure tests and
distributed them to teachers before official tests are administered; and changed low-scoring students’
identification numbers to make their score sheets invalid, resulting in the exclusion of their scores from the
school’s composite statistics. Administrators may hire test-boosting consultants who encourage teachers to focus instruction only on
those students who they feel have a fighting chance of passing accountability tests or initiate mass exoduses of low-scoring students who will do
nothing for composite test reports but bring school results down. Conversely, administrators might encourage students who have already posted
high scores on accountability tests to participate every year to boost overall school averages. Administrators may use funds— even
entire textbook budgets—to purchase test preparation booklets filled with test practice worksheets
guaranteed to boost test scores, provided that children are rigorously drilled on one test prep activity after
another. Administrators may also narrow the curriculum by concentrating all personnel efforts on the subject areas “that matter,” after which
significant gains in scores are celebrated, only to realize significant drops in achievement in the neglected subject area(s) at the same time (See, for
example, Booher-Jennings, 2006; Gordon & Reese, 1997; Goodnough, 2001; Kohn, 2000; Madaus, West, Harmon, Lomax, & Viator, 1992; McNeil,
2000; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2005; Schrag, 2000; Smith, 1991).

Dumbing Down Tests and Manipulating Cut Scores
Almost always when state accountability tests are first administered, extremely high rates of student failure are published in state newspapers. The
public is sent into a frenzy, and politicians and the public usually blame teachers, administrators, and low standards and expectations for the lack of
student proficiency. In actuality, however, the initial high rate of student failure can be better explained by two factors: (1) How difficult and
unfamiliar the accountability test was, and (2) Where the pass/fail cut score was set. Because it is not politically feasible to fail too many students
year after year, over time accountability tests are made easier, cut scores are lowered, and more students pass. This gives the public the false
impression that, because of initial high failure rates, the threat of accountability tests worked: the threat of sanctions motivated students to learn
more, teachers to teach more effectively, and administrators to adopt better educational programs. In actuality, what happens behind the
scenes in state departments of education and legislative committees often has a more significant role in
generating apparent gains in student achievement. Dumbing down tests and manipulating cut scores are
two more ways to manufacture increased levels of student proficiency and politically acceptable pass rates
(See, for example, Haney, 2000; Kellow & Wilson, 2001; Koretz, Linn, Dunbar, & Shepard, 1991; Madaus & Clarke, 2001; Orfield & Kornhaber, 2001;
Rudner, 2001; Schrag, 2000).

Greg Toppo [USA Today] When test scores seem too good to believe

Seipelt's gains and losses are typical of a pattern uncovered by a USA TODAY investigation of the standardized tests of millions of students in
six states and the District of Columbia. The newspaper identified 1,610 examples of anomalies in which public school
classes — a school's entire fifth grade, for example — boasted what analysts regard as statistically rare,
perhaps suspect, gains on state tests.
Such anomalies surfaced in Washington, D.C., and each of the states — Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Michigan and Ohio — where USA TODAY analyzed test scores. For each state, the newspaper
obtained three to seven years' worth of scores. There were another 317 examples of equally large,
year-to-year declines in an entire grade's scores.
USA TODAY used a methodology widely recognized by mathematicians, psychometricians and testing companies. It compared year-to-year changes
in test scores and singled out grades within schools for which gains were 3 standard deviations or more from the average statewide gain on that
test. In layman's language, that means the students in that grade showed greater improvement than 99.9% of their classmates statewide.
The higher the standard deviation, the rarer that improvement is. In dozens of cases, USA TODAY found 5, 6 and even 7
standard deviations [improvements in test scores], making those gains even more exceptional.
Large year-to-year jumps in test scores by an entire grade should raise red flags, especially if scores drop in later grades, says Brian Jacob, director
of the Center on Local, State and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan. Such fluctuations by themselves do not prove there was cheating, but
Jacob says they offer "a reasonable way to identify suspicious things" that should be investigated.
Education reformers say a surge in scores is possible without cheating. Mike Feinberg, the Houston-based founder of the Knowledge Is Power
Program (KIPP), a 99-school chain of charter schools widely recognized for raising test scores, says "remarkable growth" is possible with "great
teaching and more of it." Where you have "just an amazing teacher who can motivate his kids to really work hard," classes can see gains that might
seem "unbelievable" at first glance.
If big gains were followed by deep losses, Feinberg cautioned, you'd have to ask, "What were the adults doing that might not have been …
ethical?"
"You know something is profoundly different" at schools with spikes in scores, says John Tanner of Test Sense, a San Antonio consulting firm that
works with schools nationwide. But, if an investigation shows the school is making "profound changes" commensurate with the gains, "I would give
them the benefit of the doubt," he adds.
Others are more skeptical. "An individual student can exceed beyond their wildest dreams in any given year, but when a whole group shifts its
position dramatically, you have to worry," says John Fremer, president of Caveon Test Security, a Utah company hired by states and school districts
to investigate test irregularities.
Thomas Haladyna, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University, says test gains of 3 standard deviations
or more for an entire grade are "so incredible that you have to ask yourself, 'How can this be real?' "

Haladyna says such a spike in scores would be like finding "a weight-loss clinic where you lose 100 pounds a
day."
In the past decade, similar score spikes uncovered by The Dallas Morning News and the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, using the same methods as USA TODAY, led state officials in Texas and Georgia to
conduct major probes of hundreds of schools. Most recently, Atlanta Public Schools Superintendent Beverly
Hall announced she will step down in June, following inquires by federal and state investigators of alleged
cheating at 58 Atlanta schools.

INADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENT
1. Standardized tests are not a reliable measure of student performance
in the long‐run
Lynn Olson [Editorial Projects in Education] Study Questions Reliability Of SingleYear TestScore
Gains

More than half the states reward or punish schools based largely on test scores. But a new analysis suggests the methods used to identify
good and bad schools are far less reliable than state policymakers may think.
The study, which will be published next year, found that between 50 percent and 80 percent of the improvement in a
school's average [standardized] test scores from one year to the next was temporary and was caused by
fluctuations that had nothing to do with long‐term changes in learning or productivity.
"This is a paper that's well worth going through and understanding," said David W. Grissmer, a senior management scientist in Washington for the RAND
Corp., a Santa Monica, Calif.-based research organization. "The question is, are we picking out lucky schools or good schools, and unlucky schools or bad
schools? The answer is, we're picking out lucky and unlucky schools."
The paper, written by economists Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, was presented here last week at the annual conference of the Brown Center on
Education Policy, a division of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
The study is based on math- and reading-test scores for nearly 300,000 students in grades 3-5 in North Carolina each year between 1992-93 and 1998-99. The
researchers also analyzed school and grade-level data from the index used to rate California's schools from 1998 through 2000.
But many of the findings apply to test-based accountability systems in other states as well, said Mr. Kane, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and a professor of policy studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Unfortunately," he said, "most of these systems have been set up
with very little recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the measures that they're based on."

2. Multiple‐choice formats used on standardized tests are a poor
assessment tool

[The National Center for Fair and Open Testing] MultipleChoice Tests

Most researchers agree that multiple‐choice items are poor tools for measuring the ability to synthesize and
evaluate information or apply knowledge to complex problems. In math, for example, they can measure knowledge of basic facts and
the ability to apply standard procedures and rules. Carefully written multiple-choice questions also can measure somewhat more complex mathematical
knowledge such as integrating information or deciding which mathematical procedures to use to solve problems. However, as students move toward solving
non-routine problems, analyzing, interpreting, and making mathematical arguments, multiple-choice questions are not useful.
Students may recognize or know facts or procedures well enough to score high on the test, but not be able to think
about the subject or apply knowledge, even though being able to think and apply is essential to "knowing" any
subject. Therefore, the conclusion or inference that a student "knows" history or science because she got a high
score on a multiple-choice test may be false.

[The National Center for Fair and Open Testing] What's Wrong With Standardized Tests?

Are standardized tests fair and helpful evaluation tools?

Not really. On standardized exams, all test takers answer the same questions under the same conditions, usually in
multiple-choice format. Such tests reward quick answers to superficial questions. They do not measure the ability to
think deeply or creatively in any field. Their use encourages a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such
as grade retention and tracking.

Do test scores reflect significant differences among people?

Not necessarily. The goal of most tests is to sort and rank. To do that, test makers make small differences appear large. Questions most
people get right or wrong are removed because they don’t help with ranking. Because of measurement error, two people with very
different scores on one exam administration might get similar scores on a retest, or vice versa. On the SAT, for

example, two students' scores must differ by at least 144 points (out of 1,600) before the test’s sponsors are willing
to say the students' measured abilities really differ.

3. Results between similar standardized examinations are largely
inconsistent, evidenced by discrepancies in teacher grouping amongst
different tests
Sean P. Corcoran [Annenberg Institute for School Reform] Can Teachers be Evaluated by their
Students’ Test Scores? Should They Be? The Use of ValueAdded Measures of Teacher
Effectiveness in Policy and Practice

Even for the standards that can be tested, many assessments are poor representations of these standards. Recent
studies analyzing state test content in New York, Massachusetts, and Texas find that over many years of test administration, some parts of the state
curriculum are never tested (Jennings & Bearak 2010; Holcolmbe, Jennings & Koretz 2010). To take one extreme case – the 2009 New York State eighth-grade
math test – 50 percent of the possible points were based on only seven of the forty-eight state standards; what’s more, only 51 percent of the points were
required to pass. Among skills that are consistently assessed, some receive predictably greater emphasis than others. Teachers aware of systematic omissions
and repetitions can substantially inflate students’ scores by narrowly focusing on frequently tested standards (popularly known as “teaching to the test”).20
For many tests, it is also possible to “teach to the format.” Studies have illustrated how teachers focus their instruction on the format of the state test by
presenting material in the same manner as it appears on the test (Darling-Hammond & Wise 1985; Shepard & Dougherty 1991; McNeil & Valenzuela 2000).21
To the extent “teaching to the test” and “teaching to the format” behaviors differ across teachers – which they almost certainly do – true “value-added”
comparisons will be compromised. The fact that test items are sampled from a broader domain is relevant for more than just “gaming” behavior. Teachers
vary in the extent to which their time and efforts align with content specifically emphasized on the state test, for a variety of valid reasons. This variation may
be due to the average ability level in their classroom, priorities of school leadership, parental demands, and so on. Given two teachers of equal
effectiveness, the teacher whose classroom instruction happens to be most closely aligned with the test – for whatever
reason – will outperform the other in terms of value-added. Evidence that the choice of test can make a difference to value-added comes
from recent research comparing value-added measures on multiple tests of the same content area. Since 1998, Houston has administered two
standardized tests every year: the state TAKS and the nationally normed Stanford Achievement Test. Using HISD data,
we calculated separate value-added measures for fourth- and fifth grade teachers for the two tests (Corcoran, Jennings &
Beveridge 2010). These measures were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the
same time of year, using two different tests. We found that a teacher’s value-added can vary considerably
depending on which test is used. This is illustrated in Figure 5, which shows how teachers ranked on the two
reading tests. Teachers are grouped into five performance categories on each test (1 to 5), with the five TAKS categories on the horizontal axis.22 We see
that teachers who had high value-added on one test tended to have high value-added on the other, but there were many inconsistencies. For example,
among those who ranked in the top category (5) on the TAKS reading test, more than 17 percent ranked among the
lowest two categories on the Stanford test. Similarly, more than 15 percent of the lowest value added teachers on
the TAKS were in the highest two categories on the Stanford.

December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed

December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed

Similar to December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed (20)

December Standardized Testing Brief (1).compressed