Resolved: on Balance, Standardized Testing Is Beneficial to K-12 Education in the United States

West Coast Publishing
Standardized Testing
Public Forum December 2015
Starter File
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at

Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.

Table of Contents

Pro Standardized Testing is Good

Empirical Evidence Shows Testing is Effective

State Results Prove Testing is Effective

Testing Creates Better Schools

Testing Is Vital For The Real World

Testing Is Not Discriminatory

Testing Is The Best Option Available

Standardized Testing Is On-Balance Good

Pro standardized testing is good

Standardized Testing checks discrimination - EDUCATION

Standardized Testing checks discrimination - HIRING

Standardized Testing enhances education – general

Standardized Testing enhances education – alternative education

Standardized Testing enhances education - motivation

Standardized Testing ENHANCES EDUCATION – No ‘TEACHING TO TEST’

Standardized Testing are not objectifying

Standardized Testing teaches Real WORLD SKILLS

PRO PRAGMATISM IS A DESIRABLE VALUE

PRO: INCREMENTALISM IS DESIRABLE

WE CAN FIX TESTING INCREMENTALLY

TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

HIGH STAKES TESTING CAN BE APPROPRIATELY USED

TESTING GENDER GAP ISN'T SIGNIFICANT

NO DECREASED GRADUATION RATES

TESTS ARE GENERALLY GOOD

TESTING IS GENERALLY GOOD

RACIAL/ETHNIC GAP IS NOT SIGNIFICANT

ATTACKING TESTS MASKS THE PROBLEM

TESTING INCREASES ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Con Standardized Testing is bad

Standardized Testing Only Benefits The Few

Standardized Testing Causes High Dropout Rates

Standardized Testing Results in Bad Education

Standardized Testing Causes Incomplete Education

Standardized Testing Hurts Student Morale

Standardized Tests Hurt Teachers

Standardized Testing Uses a Flawed Philosophy of Education

Standardized Testing Is Net-Detrimental

Con Standardized Testing is Bad

Standardized Testing is discriminatory - minorities

Standardized Testing is discriminatory - women

Standardized Testing is discriminatory – LOW INCOME

Standardized Testing undermines education - creativity

Standardized Testing undermines education – PERVERSE INCENTIVES

Standardized Testing undermines education – TEACHING TO the TEST

Standardized Testing undermines real world success - WORKPLACE

Standardized Testing is objectification

Con HIGH STAKES TESTING UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

Con DEMOCRACY REQUIRES EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY

Con HIGH STAKES TESTING ENTRENCHES HIERARCHY AND OPPRESSION

Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS NECESSARY

Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS GOOD FOR EDUCATION

Con RACISM MUST BE REJECTED

CON: WE MUST REJECT SEXISM

TESTING IS UNFAIR

TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE COLLEGIATE OR EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK

TESTING DEHUMANIZES STUDENTS

TESTING IS RACIALLY BIASED

EXIT EXAMS DON'T INCREASE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OR INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

STEREOTYPE EFFECT HURTS WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN TESTING

Pro Standardized Testing is Good

Empirical Evidence Shows Testing is Effective

1. Quantitative analysis proves that high stakes testing is successful.

Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08,

We also find that year-to-year improvement on high stakes testing is strongly correlated with year-to-year improvement on low stakes standardized tests in some places, but weakly correlated in others. The population adjusted average correlation between year-to-year gain on high stakes tests and year-to-year gain on low stakes tests in all the school systems we examined was 0.45, which is a moderately strong correlation. But the correlation between year-to-year gains on Florida’s high and low stakes tests was extremely high, 0.71, while the correlation in other locations was considerably lower. These analyses lead us to conclude that well-designed high stakes accountability systems can and do produce reliable measures of student progress, as they appear to have done in Florida, but we can have less confidence that other states’ high stakes tests are as well designed and administered as Florida’s.

2. The best studies conclude standardized testing is beneficial for education.

Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45

Studies with more sophisticated methods have produced evidence that accountability systems positively affect student achievement. In a 2003 study examining the effects of accountability on state National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, Martin Carnoy and Susanna Loeb rate the strength of each state's system on a five-level scale; both student and school accountability contribute to the rating.5 Regression analyses controlled for per pupil revenues, student enrollment, and the percentage of African American and Hispanic students in each state. Carnoy and Loeb find that between 1996 and 2000, the stronger the accountability system, the greater the gains states made in raising the percentage of eighth graders functioning at or above the basic level in mathematics. A two-rank increase in the accountability index was associated with about a one-half standard deviation gain, which is statistically significant. The results were significantly positive for black, white, and Hispanic students and held up after controlling for how many students each state excludes from NAEP testing. The exclusion factor is important in addressing the suspicion that some states artificially inflate NAEP scores by overidentifying students in special education or limited-English programs, thereby exempting such students from NAEP testing.

3. Evidence against high stakes testing is very biased.

Most of these criticisms fail to withstand scrutiny. Much of the research done in this area has been largely theoretical, anecdotal, or limited to one or another particular state test. For example, Linda McNeil and Angela Valenzuela’s critique of the validity of high stakes testing lacks an analysis of data (see McNeil and Valenzuela 2000). Instead, their arguments are based largely on theoretical expectations and anecdotal reports from teachers, whose resentment of high stakes testing for depriving them of autonomy may cloud their assessments of the effectiveness of testing policies. Their reports of cases in which high stakes tests were manipulated are intriguing, but they do not present evidence on whether these practices are sufficiently widespread to fundamentally distort testing results.

4. A state-by-state analysis proves standardized tests works best.

Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45

John Bishop of Cornell University has examined systems targeting both students and educators. He analyzes the 1996 and 1998 NAEP scores of eighth graders in states with different accountability regimes—for students, meeting basic course requirements, passing minimum competency exams, and passing [End Page 9] curriculum-based external exit exams; and for schools, receiving rewards or sanctions based on test scores. Students in states requiring curriculum-based external exit exams (New York and North Carolina) exhibited the highest levels of achievement, with an advantage of 0.45 grade levels in math and science, followed by states that reward and sanction schools, with gains of 0.20 grade levels. Minimum competency tests had a positive but insignificant effect. Requiring particular courses for high school graduation had no effect.7

State Results Prove Testing is Effective

1. Florida proves that high stakes testing is effective.

The report also finds that Florida, which has the nation’s most aggressive high stakes testing program, has a very strong correlation between high and low stakes test results on both score levels and year-to-year score gains. This justifies a high level of confidence that Florida’s high stakes test is an accurate measure of both student performance and schools’ effects on that performance. The case of Florida shows that a properly designed high stakes accountability program can provide schools with an incentive to improve real learning rather than artificially improving test scores.

2. Texas proves standardized testing causes academic excellence.

Andrew Ruth, Staff Writer, September 18, 2002, The Daily Texan, Accessed 8/12/08,

According to the foundation's survey, 71 percent of adults are in favor of the TAKS test once they were informed about it. TEPRS officials said over 50 percent of those surveyed were not initially aware of the new test. "The thing I like about the TAKS test is you simply can't teach to it," Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, said in a release. This opinion coincides with the National Education Association's stance on standardized testing. The NEA opposes the use of standardized tests when, "programs are specifically designed to teach to the test." According to Brad Duggan, a TPERS board member and executive director of Just for the Kids, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising academic standards in public schools, Texas fourth-graders outperform all other students in the United States in math and writing. Texas is among the top seven states for performance in reading.

3. Empirical evidence proves these tests work.

Our examination of school systems containing 9% of all public school students shows that accountability systems that use high stakes tests can, in fact, be designed to produce credible results that are not distorted by teaching to the test, cheating, or other manipulations of the testing system. We know this because we have observed at least one statewide system, Florida’s, where high stakes have not distorted information either about the level of student performance or the value that schools add to their year-to-year progress. In other school systems we have found that high stakes tests produce very credible information on the level of student performance and somewhat credible information on the academic progress of students over time. Further research is needed to identify ways in which other school systems might modify their practices to produce results more like those in Florida.

4. Texas shows that standardized tests are what families want for their kids.

Andrew Ruth, Staff Writer, September 18, 2002, The Daily Texan, Accessed 8/12/08,

Most adult Texans support standardized testing, a survey released Tuesday shows. "The results of this survey are clear: Texans are saying don't mess with testing," said David Russell, communications committee chairman of the Texas Public Education Reform Foundation, which commissioned the study. Planning for the poll began 18 months ago when the foundation decided to sample attitudes toward public testing, Russell said. The survey found that 64 percent of adults are in favor of standardized testing. It also found that 57 percent of adults consider education the most important issue for the state Legislature to address.

Testing Creates Better Schools

1. Requiring a certain level of student achievement heightens schools’ commitment to education.

Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,

The constant measurement of student achievement focuses everyone's attention on student achievement. Superintendents, principals, and teachers now spend more time trying to link the structure and work of the organization to student learning. Discipline creeps back into the organization. Practices that don't seem to improve student achievement are dropped, and practices that do work spread throughout the organization. Innovation begins to flourish. Student achievement improves. As a former 12-year school board member for the Houston Independent School District, I have seen this happen in Houston and in Texas. Demanding accountability for results and measuring achievement with the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a criterion-referenced assessment--actually, a rather blunt instrument--has spurred significant improvement in student achievement. This improvement has been displayed nor only on the TAAS; it has shown up in Houston on the Stanford 9 and statewide on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

2. Standardized tests result in better teachers.

Marc Holley, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Arkansas, February 29, 2008, Education Report Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,

The alternate viewpoint is that we have not yet maximized the learning potential for all students, and improving the available educational inputs would go a long way to helping students achieve. Of the factors that schools can control, teachers make the most difference for student success; therefore, it is best for schools to focus on improving teacher quality. The most objective measure of teacher quality is to evaluate the performance of a teacher in the classroom as measured by student performance on standardized tests. To do so, it is essential to link individual students to their teachers.

3. Overall standardized tests are net-beneficial for academic achievement.

Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45

What is known so far about the effects of accountability systems on student achievement? Do they work? Are there any unintended consequences? In general, evaluations of accountability systems have been quite positive. In raising student achievement, states that have implemented such systems are outperforming states that have not done so. Although the potential for serious unintended consequences cannot be ruled out, the harms documented to date appear temporary and malleable.

4. Standardized tests are vital to maintain accountability.

Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,

Teachers know that standardized tests are not perfect measures of what their students have learned, just as they know that the assessments they develop for their own use are not perfect measures. Yet they still use them to diagnose, motivate, and focus classroom learning. And how often are they surprised by a child's standardized test score? Usually it is just about where they expected it would be. Standardized high-stakes tests also don't measure school improvement perfectly, and they shouldn't be the only accountability device we use. Nor should they be the sole measure of teacher effectiveness. But imperfect as they are, standardized tests do the job. They enable policymakers and the public to answer much more confidently the question, "Are the children learning"' More important, they change behavior.

5. Standardized tests result in balanced education.

Marc Holley, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Arkansas, February 29, 2008, Education Report Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,

Another criticism of teaching to the test is that other untested subjects do not receive as much attention. Rather than spending extra time at recess or in music or art, students practice for reading, math, science or social studies tests. Again, is this a bad thing? Students need a balanced curriculum, but the best thing we can do is to ensure that they are developing the cognitive abilities and skills that will prepare them for success in the workforce or higher education.

Testing Is Vital For The Real World

1. Standardized tests are vital to prepare students for the real world.

Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,

High-performance organizations measure almost everything. Why? Because measuring changes behavior. The best way to focus the attention of a workforce on something important is to measure it. As critics points our, measuring the performance of schools and teachers is difficult, very difficult. Does this mean we shouldn't do it? Does this mean we leave teachers, in the privacy of their classrooms, to set their own standards, develop their own performance measures, and tell us whether the children are learning? We tried this. The result: too many teachers neglected to reach the curriculum or did not teach effectively, and too many children suffered the consequences.

2. Standardized testing is vital to help American maintain its lead in education.

Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41

The release of A Nation at Risk (National Commission, 1983) reinforced the need for student accountability and elevated the level of demonstrated proficiency. According to the report, the United States could no longer rely on minimal reading and math competency to maintain its competitive edge. Instead, students needed to be held to "rigorous and measurable" standards in order to ensure the country's success in the information age (National Commission, 1983). These standards would raise the level of expected learning and, in essence, define a new set of minimum competencies. Within 3 years, 35 states had begun comprehensive educational reform, marking the beginning of an almost 2-decade journey to create and hold students accountable for mastery of a new set of world class standards (KornhaberOrfield, 2001). Currently, a majority of states use or have plans in place to use state-mandated tests as the sole or significant criteria for promotion and/or graduation from public elementary and secondary schools ("Quality Counts," 2002).